MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <559A9378.7000006@neratec.com>
References: <CAHr=Vq=hJr6WUQgFXftMSG2zYgwtCXgoTaXBzRfM8-kQa2-K2w@mail.gmail.com>
	<55966D1B.1040603@neratec.com>
	<CAHr=VqnpJ_+ovmB3gqm+X9WX98ZeVuO8VZ2cq6OFPcdjy8Rkgg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5596A3C0.6020303@neratec.com>
	<20150706132707.GA22962@ubuntu-hedt>
	<559A9378.7000006@neratec.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 10:13:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHr=VqkH=Tsi1mbRRgnhOT6UZSEfpNZXUXHA9+9B6M+qJb0upA@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20150706_191358_682536_2EA2D148)
Subject: Re: wireless-regdb: update CA rules for 5600 - 5650 mHz
From: Wei Zhong <wzhong@google.com>
To: Zefir Kurtisi <zefir.kurtisi@neratec.com>
Cc: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>,
	wireless-regdb@lists.infradead.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

I have applied more restrictive rule for (5490-5590) and allowed 80Mhz
for (5650 - 5730).

The patch has been uploaded in another thread.
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/wireless-regdb/2015-July/000858.html

Thanks.

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Zefir Kurtisi <zefir.kurtisi@neratec.com> wrote:
> On 07/06/2015 03:27 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 05:01:20PM +0200, Zefir Kurtisi wrote:
>>> On 07/03/2015 04:20 PM, Wei Zhong wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> From your other post:
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     >  -       (5490 - 5730 @ 160), (24), DFS
>>>>>     >  +       (5490 - 5590 @ 80), (24), DFS
>>>>>
>>>>>     I agree. 5590 is more strict than 5600.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On a second thought,  5590 implies channel 116 can't have 40MHz. I think that is
>>>>> still allowed per regulation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> No, channel 116 is not usable for HT40 if weather radar channels are disabled,
>>> since it can only be combined with channel 120 and that one partially falls into
>>> the restricted range.
>>
>> It's not necessary to restrict the band down to 5590 or break out the
>> rule for channel 116 separately, the software is smart enough to work
>> out what's allowed based on the original rule Wei supplied for 5490-5600
>> MHz. In fact that rule exactly matches what we used to have in db.txt
>> for the US prior to the TDWR restrictions being lifted.
>>
>
> Yes, the SW is smart and sane enough to extract the limitations even if they are
> defined less restrictive than required. Which raises the general question of what
> needs to be defined as rule and what can be relied on to be handled correctly by
> the SW.
>
> Example: why do we need to bother about the max-bw parameter for a rule at all? We
> know there is no 160MHz channel within 5490 and 5600, as does the SW. If we wrote
> (5490 - 5600 @ 160) instead of (5490 - 5600 @ 80), nothing would change.
>
> To me it sounds not fully consistent to explicitly limit max-bw while relying on
> SW to sanitize frequency ranges. Not that it really matters in practice, but it
> has a potential to simplify the rules (i.e. provide max-bw parameter only if the
> according country defines restrictions and leave SW to handle it otherwise).
>
>
> Cheers,
> Zefir